The future of James Bond

blue note wrote: »

Age is a big thing for me with bond. I think Hardy is too old to be cast as bond now. By the time the first film would be out he'd be about 47, he could easily be 50 by the second. That should be a cut off in my eyes. And when you cast a bond you want at least 3 films from him.

I felt brosnan at the end looked too old for it, even more so with connery and Moore. They were less believable beating up people, and a bit of a dirty old man bedding the 20 something year old girls.

Roger Moore mentioned this himself in interviews, he felt ridiculous as a 50 something year old man kissing/bedding 20 something year olds.

John David Washington (provided he can do the accent of course)

In all honesty there are probably 5 decent James Bond movies.

khalessi wrote: »

Roger Moore mentioned this himself in interviews, he felt ridiculous as a 50 something year old man kissing/bedding 20 something year olds.

My favourite example of this was For Your Eyes Only, in which the villain is a creep for grooming the 21 year old skater, while Bond is a stud who gets the 23 year old Bond girl in the end. Granted, this is a movie in which the plot is at one point carried along by a parrot telling Bond where to go next, and the whole thing could have been resolved in five minutes with a diver and a satchel of explosives, but I find the fewer eye rolls a movie evokes the better.

loyatemu wrote: »

The Hardy rumour seems to be doing the rounds, it would be unusual for them to cast someone already so well known. Craig was a minor movie actor, Moore and Brosnan were best known for TV, Dalton for stage acting; Connery was a bodybuilder and Lazenby a male model. Hardy's not quite A-list but he's a lot more famous than any of the previous Bonds.

Well, Roger Moore was arguably more well known, having previously appeared in The Saint and The Persuaders which had made him an established TV star by the time he got the Bond role.

Never mind all that stuff about Moore being older than his leading ladies, I’m more alarmed that I’ve now reached that stage where the next Bond is going to be years younger than me !!!

Loads would have been great over the years. Hugh Jackman would have been perfect I reckon. Ewan McGregor would have been interesting. I'd love to have seen Idris Elba, but 10-15 years ago.

I don't know who I want next. A black bond would be interesting. Daniel kaluuya perhaps? Not sure how they'd sell in Asia though.

breezy1985 wrote: »

I hate that Craig's Bond needed to explain the characters regeneration. Never had I watched a Bond and thought the illusion is ruined cause this guy looks different to before or how is he still going since the 60s.

Also Bond does his thing cause he is a spy on a mission and not because of mammy issues

Bond isn't a continuation of anything. Craig's Bond isn't the same guy as Brosnan's. Connery's isn't the same as Moore's and so on.

In fact, outside of the Craig era, there's little to no continuation between the movies of any Bond actor. They are all essentially stand alone films.

Apart from the latest iteration, one could watch any Bond film they wish without having seen any other. Or watch them all out of sync in a hodge-podge way. Because there was no sync.

Going forward (ugh), I think Bond will become more of a follow up series of films, with each movie building on what came before, because that's what audiences are expecting these days. But, it'll be rebooted every time there's a change of actor.

To be honest, Bond is dead. It died years ago. The Craig era breathed new life into it for a bit, but it has absolutely nowhere to go.

Tony EH wrote: »

Bond isn't a continuation of anything. Craig's Bond isn't the same guy as Brosnan's. Connery's isn't the same as Moore's and so on.

In fact, outside of the Craig era, there's little to no continuation between the movies of any Bond actor. They are all essentially stand alone films.

Apart from the latest iteration, one could watch any Bond film they wish without having seen any other. Or watch them all out of sync in a hodge-podge way. Because there was no sync.

Going forward (ugh), I think Bond will become more of a follow up series of films, with each movie building on what came before, because that's what audiences are expecting these days. But, it'll be rebooted every time there's a change of actor.

To be honest, Bond is dead. It died years ago. The Craig era breathed new life into it for a bit, but it has absolutely nowhere to go.

If it's to continue I hope you are right that each is
a self contained movie or in a little block for each actor but Craigbond looked like it was trying to set up some pass the baton Dr. Who style nonsense.

Preferably though it just ends as I also think it has run out of stream and there have been plenty of other great spy movies so it's not like you need Bond

Keyzer wrote: »

Dead in what way pray tell...

$2.2 billion at the box office and No Time to Die hasn't even been released yet would clearly indicate a lot of other people don't feel its dead.

Money isn't everything. People really need to stop looking at BO as an indicator of quality.

What I mean by "dead", is that there is nowhere for it to go and it hasn't for a long, long time. Bond is formula. A formula which one can take or leave and one which will have an audience. But, as movies, they are terribly limited. The Craig era tried to move out of that shell. But then chickened out and retreated back into it, resulting in the mediocre 'Spectre'.

I imagine that it's actually a bit of a struggle to produce a Bind movie these days, because of the limitations of it. Really, for me, the most interesting thing about it today is seeing how much they are willing to depart from the tired old formula that it's trapped in.

Dades wrote: »

Casino Royale is the best of Craigs, and it's not a coincidence it isn't all based on some labyrinthine world building.

Having seen all the Bond's, while not being a fan really, 'Casino Royale' is head an shoulders above all of them. It's a well made and tense story, that made an effort to jettison all the lesser parts of a Bond film. It's easily the best Craig Bond too, I agree, and I have no doubt that 'No Time to Die' isn't going to change that.

Dades wrote: »

The producers just made the mistake of going down a certain path, and taking it all far too seriously.

I'd disagree here. I like that with 'Casino Royale', Bond grew up. I think the move away from the stupid of the likes of 'Moonraker' was absolutely essential for it to be taken seriously by an audience. Bond just cannot be Austin Powers any more.

Dades wrote: »

They have an opportunity with the next reboot to keep it simple, and keep it Bondy... a la Casino Royale. But the temptation will be there to get increasingly trendy directors to make their movies and they will try to elevate the franchise beyond its roots.

'Casino Royale' was anything but "Bondy" to my eyes. That's one of the reasons I'd hold it in relatively high regard. It refreshingly invigorated a series that had shot its bolt years before the Dalton or the Brosnan eras, which were the nadir of the whole 26 movies.

It's just a pity that the producers couldn't retain that momentum.

Dades wrote: »

I'd love a Guy Richie or and Quentin Tarantino Bond, but a Christopher Nolan Bond would be an even less fun Spectre.

A Guy Ritchie Bond?...ugh. A Tarantino Bond? No. That would end up just being a riff like everything else he's made (with the exception of 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Jackie Brown'). I couldn't see them as a choice for director at all, I'm afraid. Richie is too limited and Tarantino would probably start off well and then descend into nonsense like so many of his films do.

A Nolan Bond? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Can't see him going for it though.